Saturday, September 29, 2012

You may have seen the articles by "experts" claiming that state-controlled health care has cut down on the number of abortions in Massachusetts. They argue that giving people better coverage keeps them from having abortions. People who are supposed to be "pro-life" who support Obama and O-care have started using these "facts" to try to convince people not to repeal O-care.

You know, the best expert in analyzing data is our own Michael New. I asked Michael to look at abortion numbers since the start of Romneycare.

Of course, it is not the case that state controlled health care has cut abortions in MA. Michael's work will be very helpful in overturning O-care. You'll want to have this information at your fingertips.

Last month, an article by Brian Fung on the Atlantic Monthly website sent the media spin machine into overdrive. It provided data from the Massachusetts Department of Health which showed that abortion per capita in Massachusetts decreased after Romneycare took effect in 2007. A number of media outlets including Slate and Commonweal have eagerly made the case that universal health care is an effective strategy for reducing the abortion rate. Furthermore, the Massachusetts abortion decline has become a favorite talking point for Catholic University of America Professor Stephen Schneck and other self-described pro-lifers who are supporting President Obama.

However, a closer look at the data provided by the Massachusetts Department of Health provides good evidence that the abortion decline in Massachusetts post-Romneycare is statistically consistent with the decline that has been taking place since the early 1990s. I obtained annual abortion data from the Massachusetts Department of Health and replicated Fung's findings. Then for every year from 1990 to 2011, I calculated the Massachusetts abortion rate per thousand women of childbearing age. This is generally thought to be a better measure of the incidence of abortion than the per capita measure which Fung used.

The results were clear. Between 1991 and 2006 - before Romneycare took effect - the average annual percentage decline in the Massachusetts abortion rate was 2.52 percent. Between 2007 and 2011 the average annual decline was 2.54 percent. In short, the difference in the Massachusetts abortion decline pre- and post-Romneycare was miniscule. Overall, it seems clear that the abortion rate in Massachusetts continued on a very similar downward trajectory after Romneycare took effect in 2007.

Another factoid that has received attention from Fung and others is the sharp decline in the abortion rate for minors in Massachusetts. Here it does appear that the minor abortion rate started to decline more quickly after 2007. Still, these statistics should be interpreted carefully. The abortion data for minors reported by the Massachusetts Department of Health shows a considerable amount of variation from year to year. For instance, in 2001 the number of abortions performed on minors fell by over 21 percent. In 2003, the same figures indicate that minor abortions increased by 18 percent. With statistics this volatile, any fluctuation needs to be interpreted with caution.

To his credit, Fung does express some caution about his findings. He acknowledges the downward trend in the Massachusetts abortion rate since the early 1990s. Still, Fung quotes two academics to bolster his argument that Romneycare reduced abortion rates. Unfortunately their comments are unpersuasive. Danielle Bessett, a sociologist at the University of Cincinnati, does not cite any studies, but anecdotally reports that some low-income Massachusetts residents are "delighted" they have better access to contraception. Harvard rheumatologist Patrick Whelan axiomatically assumes better access to contraception will reduce abortion rates - even though research by both the Guttmacher Institute and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control find that a very small percentage of sexually active women forgo contraception because of cost or lack of availability.

Overall, there is no peer-reviewed research showing that greater health-care coverage reduces the abortion rate. Furthermore, the experience of states that have offered more generous provision of public-health benefits is instructive. For instance, in 1974, Hawaii passed legislation requiring all employers to provide relatively generous health-care benefits to any employee who works 20 hours a week or more. Since that time, Hawaii has consistently had one of the lowest rates of uninsured adults in the country. However, according to data from the Guttmacher Institute, Hawaii's abortion rate consistently exceeds the national average.

An even better example comes from Tennessee. In 1994, Tennessee launched an ambitious public-insurance program to cover its uninsured. TennCare, as it is called, expanded Medicaid to cover people who couldn't afford insurance or who had been denied coverage by an insurance company. With an initial budget of $2.6 billion, TennCare quickly extended coverage to an additional 500,000 people by making access to its plans easy and affordable. The program, however, became so expensive that Tennessee was forced to scale it back in 2005.

Despite the fact that Tennessee invested heavily in more generous public-health benefits, its abortion rate has not changed much since the mid-1990s. In fact, the decline in Tennessee's abortion rate is actually well below the national average. Between 1995 and 2005, the Guttmacher Institute reports that the national abortion rate fell by 13.8 percent. However, in Tennessee the abortion rate fell by only 3.3 percent. Overall, it seems clear that more generous health benefits in Tennessee did little to reduce the incidence of abortion.

Every election cycle media outlets are quick to promote any research - even superficial research - that purportedly shows that welfare programs or public-health programs lower the abortion rate. Unfortunately, the substantial body of peer-reviewed studies documenting the effectiveness of pro-life laws, including parental-involvement laws and public-funding restrictions, is all but ignored.

It is disappointing that many media outlets are more interested in providing political cover for Democrats than offering a serious and balanced analysis of abortion trends in the United States.

Michael J. New is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Michigan-Dearborn, a fellow at the Witherspoon Institute, and an adjunct scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute in Washington, D.C.

Tuesday, September 25, 2012

September 30, 2012--Celebration of the Red Mass Join the Catholic Lawyers' Guild of Boston for a Mass, celebrated by His Eminence Sean Cardinal O'Malley, Archbishop of Boston at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross, for Lawyers at 11:30AM on September 30. There will be a Luncheon to follow at The Seaport Hotel, One Seaport Lane, Boston. The guest speaker at the lunch will be pro-life leader, Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey. All are welcome. Call Phil Moran, 978 745 6085

October 3, 2012--Presentation of Neonatal Hospice Programs. Elvira Parravicini, MD presents at 7PM on Oct 3 at the O'Keefe Auditorium, Massachusetts General Hospital. CLICK HERE for more information.

October 7, 2012--Respect Life Mass The Archdiocese of Boston will be holding it's Respect Life Mass at 11:30 at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross. Here, in part, the announcement of the Archdiocese: "This year's annual Mass celebrating " Respect Life Sunday" (October 7 at 11:30 at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross) will take on a special significance as it comes in the midst of efforts across the Commonwealth to defeat Question 2, the physician-assisted suicide referendum on November 6. Please plan to join Cardinal Sean in this time of prayer for true compassion at end-of-life and the defeat of the physician-assisted suicide referendum. Those who can come early are invited to join at 11:00 am in the Blessed Sacrament Chapel to pray the rosary in solidarity to defeat PAS - Question 2. Deacon Tim Maher, who is part of the team of medical and legal experts offering parish-based educational programs against PAS, will be leading the rosary. We are grateful to Deacon Tim and all of you who are doing your part in this most important effort against PAS." No RSVP is needed.

The Doctor-Prescribed Suicide ballot question here in Massachusetts has national and, indeed, international implications. If we let the death lobby win here, they will be all over the country in no time. They are gearing up with presentations across the state and massive fund-raising. WE HAVE TO RAISE MONEYalso and we have to employ right-to-life's secret weapon - our people.

I am very concerned that people are wasting energy on other things when our primary job is to defeat DPS.

Many are focusing on Sen Brown saying he is "pro-choice" He has always said that and then voted pro-life. What a contrast to my congressman who says he is pro-life and then votes pro-abortion!

From our point of view, Brown has been lucky in his opponents because of the clear contrast they provided. His State Senate opponent went on to a very high paying job with Planned Parenthood. Martha Coakley announced that Catholics should not be allowed to work in emergency rooms, among other anti-life gaffs.Now we have Elizabeth Warren, an Obama clone on the life issues.

We have a responsibility to vote for the person who will do the most to save the lives of the babies. Blanking won't save any lives. That is the individual responsibility of each of us. If you need more assurance, read the interesting article from 2010 below as well as comments on the subject from Planned Parenthood, National Abortion Rights Action League and Emily's List and then MOVE ON! We need to leave that and focus on Doctor-Prescribed Suicide.

Dianne Luby, President of Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund of Massachusetts,

"Scott Brown continues to show Massachusetts voters that he believes campaign rhetoric is worth more than real action - but women need and deserve to be represented by a Senator who will stand up for women's health no matter what, not just when it's politically convenient. Brown's new ad tries to label him 'pro-choice' and yet women in Massachusetts still can't rely on him to vote for women's health.

Megan Amundson, Executive Director of NARAL Pro-Choice, sees some irony in the situation: "This is the one thing that Massachusetts Citizens for Life and NARAL Pro Choice of Massachusetts do agree on - is that Scott Brown may call himself pro-choice, but in reality he voted pro-choice only 1 in 5 times."

Why pro-lifers didn't sell their soul for Brown

In the aftermath of Scott Brown's historic victory in Massachusetts, some observers were quick to ask a hard question: did pro-life organizations and individuals sell their souls in campaigning for Brown, a pro-choice Republican and supporter of Roe v. Wade? In other words, did political expediency trump ideological commitment for pro-lifers?

Such a charge is somewhat disconcerting to those who keep track of this debate because the accusation came from the same liberal camp that so-often has criticized the pro-life movement in the past for not lowering their standards and for rigidly neglecting the quest to find common ground or incremental solutions to the ongoing tragedy of abortion. And yet, after Massachusetts, these same figures are now complaining that the pro-life movement betrayed its principles in taking Brown's side in this nationally visible race, by supporting a candidate who advocates both incremental and common ground solutions on abortion.

Certainly these critics do make a valid observation when they point out that during the post-Brown celebrations many leaders of the pro-life movement sometimes overlooked the amount of disagreement that at times exists between them and Brown on life issues. However, this oversight was less due to expediency but rather was born from relief: for the first time in over a year, the pro-life movement had truly caught a break.

Consider the history: after the election of Barack Obama (a staunch supporter of abortion-on-demand) and after heavy losses among pro-life representatives in both chambers of Congress (including the emergence of a supermajority Democrat Senate that strongly leans pro-choice), together with the juggernaut of a health care reform bill containing huge federal subsidies for abortion providers-the pro-life movement had been having a hard go of it, and was more than ready to hear something other than the worst possible news.

But did the pro-life movement, and Catholics in particular, sell their souls to help Brown win, and fight for the better outcome?

The most common charge against the pro-life movement these days, especially when that movement is involved in politics and elections, is that it is actually a front of the Republican Party (never mind the fact that the pro-choice movement lumps the vast majority of its money and resources behind the Democratic party candidates). This pro-Republicanism is how liberals explain the pro-life movement's support of both John McCain in the 2008 presidential election, and their incongruous support of Scott Brown (a pro-choicer) in the 2010 Massachusetts senate race: they're both Republicans.

But the common thread between these two decisions is far more disarmingly simple: Brown and McCain, while not perfect from the perspective of the pro-life movement, were better pro-life choices than their respective alternatives.

In the case of the general election between Barack Obama and John McCain in 2008, the pro-life movement was confronted, on the one hand, with an on-the-record 100 percent pro-abortion Democrat candidate (who even supported late-term abortions and promised a group of abortion supporters to sign the Freedom of Choice Act). On the other hand, the pro-life movement had the option of supporting a Republican candidate who ran on the pro-life platform of the Republican party, chose a highly-visible pro-life Vice-President, and could be reasonably expected to support the nomination of pro-life justices to the Supreme Court.

In the case of Massachusetts after the primaries had concluded this year, the pro-life movement was faced with two candidates who supported the status quo of Roe v. Wade, only the Democrat Coakley has been an activist for pro-abortion causes, received money from pro-abortion organizations, publicly denied the rights of Catholic health care workers to conscience protection, and would re-secure the Democrats' 60th-vote supermajority to pass a health care plan that included huge federal subsidies for taxpayer-funded abortions. Her Republican opponent Brown supported parental notification rights, supported the conscience rights of Catholic health care workers, strongly opposed federal funding of abortions both at the state and federal level, and was never given (to my knowledge) a penny from a pro-abortion organization's coffers.

One does not have too look for a deeper partisan motivation to see why a pro-life individual or organization, in both cases, would choose McCain over Obama, and Brown over Coakley. Indeed, the experience of electing Obama has taught the pro-life movement several hard lessons about being saddled with the greater of two evils when you fail to settle for the lesser. Obama has done nothing concrete to reduce the number of abortions in this country, despite his assurances that he would do so. If this ever was a personal priority of his, it clearly is not one now. He has meanwhile overturned a policy that prevented international funding of abortions. Obama has also never seriously addressed the federal abortion subsidies in the health care bills (despite the widespread attention given to this issue by the press) or their lack of rigorous conscience clause protections.

Even more absurdly, some armchair theologians have tries to claim that Catholic pro-lifers were hypocrites for supporting the pro-choice candidate Brown, but not supporting the pro-choice candidate Obama. They miss what makes the two examples completely different: in the election of Obama there was a candidate who claimed (and could be reasonably presumed) to be pro-life: McCain. In the election of Brown, there was no candidate who claimed (or could be reasonably presumed) to be pro-life (Coakley was actually worse). These same armchair theologians (betraying a distinctly partisan selective-ignorance of the facts) ignored the reality that in both the Presidential election of 2008, and this senate race in 2010, the pro-life movement supported the more pro-life candidate (or, if you will, the less pro-abortion candidate).

Thus the awkward contradiction between how Catholic and other pro-life voters behaved in 2008 and 2010 is not between those who, supporting both McCain and Brown, consistently voted for the candidate who would, one could reasonable conclude, do more for the cause of the unborn, but between Catholic and other pro-life Democrats who continually justify voting for the candidate that, according to all the publicly-available evidence, will actually do less for the cause of the unborn (voting for Obama and Coakley).

Or to put it another way: Consistent Catholics and other pro-life voters always vote for the candidate that they believe will best help unborn human life, while partisan Catholics and other pro-life voters vote for their party first, and then figure out which argument they want to cite to justify that party-line vote afterwards.

It is an unfortunate diagnosis of our current political landscape that, most of the time, the issue of defending unborn human life must appear "partisan" because consistent Catholics and other pro-life voters have fewer options in the Democrat party than the Republican. While the pro-life movement is all in favor of changing this status quo, it has also learned that one of the best ways to see change occur is for political candidates of both parties to understand that they seriously risk losing pro-life voters if they take extreme positions as candidates in their abortion views.

Democrats, for their part, could very easily remove this sticking liability from their elections if they, as a party and as individual candidates, embraced pro-life positions. In the meantime, their oftentimes radical views on this fundamental moral issue continue to lose them support-and impassioned support-from an important constituency of American voters.

If liberal supporters of Coakley and those who fear that Obama's agenda will be seriously imperiled by the upcoming fall elections want to take any lesson from Massachusetts, it should not be that the pro-life movement has changed, or has sold its soul. The lesson should be that pro-lifers will consistently support the candidate who pledges to do more for the unborn. And the more a candidate of either party pledges to advocate the nonpartisan issue of defending unborn human life, the more they will receive consistent pro-life support.

If anyone tells you different, chances are they voted for Coakley.

Thomas Peters authors the American Papist Blog at CatholicVoteAction.org. He also works for the American Principles Project. His e-mail is thomas@catholicvoteaction.org.

Sunday, September 23, 2012

The Doctor-Prescribed Suicide ballot question here in Massachusetts has national and, indeed, international implications. If we let the death lobby win here, they will be all over the country in no time. They are gearing up with presentations across the state and massive fund-raising. WE HAVE TO RAISE MONEYalso and we have to employ right-to-life's secret weapon - our people.

I am very concerned that people are wasting energy on other things when our primary job is to defeat DPS.

Many are focusing on Sen Brown saying he is "pro-choice" He has always said that and then voted pro-life. What a contrast to my congressman who says he is pro-life and then votes pro-abortion!

From our point of view, Brown has been lucky in his opponents because of the clear contrast they provided. His State Senate opponent went on to a very high paying job with Planned Parenthood. Martha Coakley announced that Catholics should not be allowed to work in emergency rooms, among other anti-life gaffs.Now we have Elizabeth Warren, an Obama clone on the life issues.

We have a responsibility to vote for the person who will do the most to save the lives of the babies. Blanking won't save any lives. That is the individual responsibility of each of us. If you need more assurance, read the interesting article from 2010 below as well as comments on the subject from Planned Parenthood, National Abortion Rights Action League and Emily's List and then MOVE ON! We need to leave that and focus on Doctor-Prescribed Suicide.

Thursday, September 20, 2012

I heard on WBZ radio (1030 AM) this morning that Dan Rea's talk show (Nightside) will have a segment on assisted suicide tonight at 8:00 and that both sides will be represented. I have no idea who will be representing our side. I couldn't find any more information on line.

I'm sure that the segment will last at least an hour and may go longer if the audience seems interested and Dan doesn't have anyone booked for the 9:00 hour.

Keep two things in mind: The Brown-Warren senate debate will be broadcast at 7:00 and so there may be a larger audience than usual at 8:00 and supposedly WBZ reaches 38 states and the eastern provinces of Canada at night but I'm not sure if that's true as early as 8:00 PM.

I've noticed that the callers that get the most amount of time to talk are those that stay calm and use anecdotes and humor rather than being combative.

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

I got this yesterday from the No on Question 2 Campaign. They need our help right away. I'm sure you'll all do your best. -Anne _________ Dear Friends,

I need your help. Please, stop whatever you're doing right now and take a moment to go to www.noonquestion2.org (CLICK HERE) to fill out your Doctor-Prescribed Suicide Opposition Form. Let your voice be heard. Speak out against Question 2.

Make no mistake, if Doctor-Prescribed Suicide is legalized the elderly, disabled and severely ill will all suffer. When suicide becomes a treatment it may soon become a preferred treatment for state regulators and insurance companies looking to hold down costs.

Consider what happened to Barbara Wagner of Oregon, where Doctor-Prescribed Suicide is legal. She'd beaten cancer twice but when it returned her health plan refused to pay for an expensive life-extending treatment recommended by her doctor. Instead they offered her a lethal prescription with no co-pay. In their view she was too old, too sick and too poor to deserve more time with friends and family.

I can't speak for you, but I don't want government bureaucrats and profit-driven corporations making these decisions for me and my loved ones. I don't want my insurance company to decide whether my life is worth the money. If suicide becomes a treatment, however, that is exactly what will happen. That's why I need you to stand with me and say no to Question 2.

With healthcare costs rising, the proponents of the law in Question 2 are looking for a way to cut costs by cutting out real, compassionate care for the vulnerable in society. I don't want to let that happen and I'm sure you don't either. Please stand with me and fight Question 2 (CLICK HERE).

I want to remind you that we have moved the Walk to Aid Mothers and Children to April 28, 2013. The following article appeared in the May/June MCFL News I hope you'll be able to come to the Banquet. Please put the Walk on your calendar. Anne

MCFL's 26th Respect Life Walk Moves to Spring 2013

The MCFL Walk Committee is pleased to announce that the 26th Annual Respect Life Walk to Aid Mothers and Children will take place in Spring 2013. Respect Life Walk Co-Chair Nicholi McLaughlin said, "The reasoning behind the change is a conflict with MCFL's Annual Dinner which also takes place in October. It doesn't make sense for MCFL to have two major fund-raising events so close together."

The delay until 2013 will give the Walk Committee extra time to investigate more opportunities for matching gifts and corporate donations. Last year MCFL received a partial matching grant from the Choose Life Foundation and donations of free ice cream from H.P. Hood. "We are hoping that these ideas will inspire the walkers knowing that every pledge they bring in will go even further," continued McLaughlin. "We've been especially gratified to see more youth groups participating in raising money for pro-life organizations in their towns."

For twenty-five years, the Walk has benefited more than forty organizations that help mothers choose life for their children. The beneficiaries, mostly staffed by volunteers, provide an impressive array of aid, including crisis pregnancy services, homes for pregnant women and educational programs.

Sunday, September 16, 2012

This note just arrived from Robin Loughman. It is so important that I am sending it right along to you. I know you will do the very best you can. Bless you, Anne

Dear Friends,

The Radical Suicide Lobby has set up camp in Massachusetts and is putting us all in danger. Please read this entire message to see how you might be affected by the frightening developments outlined below.

This November voters will be presented with a ballot question, Question 2,which would legalize Doctor-Prescribed Suicide. If this proposal becomes law, doctors could prescribe patients with a lethal drug overdose instead of real treatment.

Since they succeeded in legalizing Doctor-Prescribed Suicide in Oregon and Washington,the pro-death organization formerly known as the Hemlock Society, now called Compassion and Choices, has been defeated in several other states. Now they have focused on Massachusetts.They think a big win can revitalize their agenda and take assisted suicide to other states.

We can't let that happen.

If Doctor-Prescribed Suicide becomes the law they will be the first targets as cost becomes a factor in healthcare decisions.

For example, in Oregon where "assisted suicide" is legal, a cancer patient was offered assisted suicide by her healthcare provider instead of more expensive treatment even though the patient wanted treatment; treatment that would have given her extra time with her family, grandchildren and loved ones.

She was "only" a retired bus driver and her treatment was considered too expensive. Lethal doses of prescription drugs, however, were offered as an alternative.I don't think any of us want to live under that system.

Time is running out. This ballot question will be voted on in November and will have implications all across this country. The Hemlock Society campaign team has already ready begun purchasing television air time.Remember, the proponents of Question 2 are flush with cash from wealthy out-of-state money men. We need your help to level the playing field.

The stakes are so high.

We need funds to pay for a statewide campaign effort to make sure people know the danger posed by Doctor-Prescribed Suicide. This effort must include a major media campaign to compete with the millions of dollars the suicide advocates will spend on television and radio. We don't have foreign billionaires backing our side. It's down to the few of us that stand for human rights and human dignity.

Together, I know we can do it. I hope I can count on you.

Question 2 would make it legal for a physician to give a "terminal" patient with a prognosis of less than 6 months to live a lethal dose of drugs intended to cause his death. The proposed law ignores the fact that even the most accurate medical prognosis is little better than a guess – that is one reason the Massachusetts Medical Society opposes Question 2.

It also ignores the fact that a huge proportion of those with thoughts of suicide shortly after a terminal diagnosis are suffering, quite naturally, from severe but treatable depression. After these patients receive the proper care for their depression, few ever express a desire for suicide.

Even more troubling, there is no requirement that someone requesting suicide pills be referred for mental health screening. Think about that for a second—suicidal thoughts are a common sign of depression or mental illness.Why won't proponents of the bill at least try and be safe rather than sorry?Why is the Hemlock Society so afraid that people might be given a second chance?

The pro-suicide effort won't stop with Massachusetts. We're at the top of their list now, but it used to be Washington and before that Oregon. Other states will surely be a priority for them eventually, and the fight will be so much easier for them once they have Massachusetts in their pocket.

We need to draw a line in the sand. If we defeat Question 2 in Massachusetts we will deal a serious blow to the Hemlock Society and their radical pro-death movement. It will hamper or even destroy many of their other efforts. On the other hand, Massachusetts could be Step One to their continued expansion.

The future of quality care, for the sick, for the vulnerable and even for you and me is counting on what we do today.

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

We just received this marvelous news from Merry Nordeen of Choose Life License Plates

Hi Everyone,

Latest plate counts in - 3,054! The reality has barely hit me. We sold over 150 plates this past month! I want to thank everyone for your prayers and your support. My second phone call, (the first was to my husband, Ken) was to our lovely benefactor to tell him the bond will be released. When, I don't know, but it will be released for certain. Now begins the wonderful work of giving away the money. We will begin issuing our grants again and can start making bigger plans supported by the plate.

I must thank you also. Early in the summer MCFL telephoned 3,000 of you. The response was overwhelming, which caused the plates to have their finishing spurt. I know many of you also spread the word. Now we still need more and more plates - We need to have them all over the roads of Massachusetts for everyone to see. Merry and Ken and the Choose Life Foundation have done an outstanding service for us and for everyone in the state.

Thank you all for voting in the Globe poll yesterday. The poll finished with 71%of the people opposed to DPS! Great work!

We have another vital request. Robin Loughman, RN, who is doing such a great job leading the No On 2 effort - Massachusetts Against Doctor-Prescribed Suicid - needs to have you send her an "Endorsement" form saying you oppose Question 2. She needs to have that information for the fight we are in. She asks you to go to http://noonquestion2.org/index.php/take-action, fill out and return the form. Doctors, nurses, lawyers, teachers, and everyone else who wants to protect life needs to sign up today.

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

When the doctor prescribed suicide question first made the ballot, the Boston Globe ran an article, "Choice vs Religion". We knew from other states that one of the main arguments of the death lobby is painting any opposition to DPS as backward thinking by the heavily financed Catholic Church. The Globe front page article today, obviously, is laying the groundwork to go on the attack. We need to comment and to vote in the survey! As I write we are BEHIND 75% - 22%.Please vote now!Thanks,Anne

Thursday, September 6, 2012

The death lobby has always claimed, stridently, that abortion was safer (for the woman) than childbirth. Given the nature of the procedures, that is counter intuitive but we thought that other factors - like a traffic death of a pregnant woman being counted as a pregnancy death - might account for it. Now we have some very thorough longitudinal studies and - guess what? Pro-life intuition was right all along! Even for the woman, abortion is more dangerous than childbirth! I can't wait to cite these studies! Anne

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

As usual, MCFL sent Questionnaires to all challengers. Their responses and the voting records of incumbents will tell you where these people stand on the life issues. This involves a huge amount of work. I want to thank Janet Callahan, Helen Cross, Eva Murphy, John Triolo, and everyone else who worked on it.

It is important that we all vote - and that we each cast an informed vote. For Life, Anne